Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:39:54 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR ARM64 (KVM/arm64)" 
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@android.com,
        android-kvm@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/27] KVM: arm64: Enable access to sanitized CPU
 features at EL2
Message-ID: <20201123143954.GA578849@google.com>
References: <20201117181607.1761516-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20201117181607.1761516-14-qperret@google.com>
 <20201123132223.oohevce4izuoaqi3@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201123132223.oohevce4izuoaqi3@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 23 Nov 2020 at 13:22:23 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Could you help my understand why we need this?
> * Why do we need PI routines in the first place? Would my series that fixes
>   relocations in hyp code remove the need?
> * You added these aliases for the string routines because you were worried
>   somebody would change the implementation in arch/arm64/lib, right? But this
>   cache flush function is defined in hyp/nvhe. So why do we need to point to
>   the PI alias if we control the implementation?

Right, in the specific case of the __flush_dcache_area() function none
of the PI stuff is really needed I think. I did it this way to keep
things as consistent as possible with the host-side implementation, but
that is not required.

I understand this can cause confusion, so yes, I'll simplify this for
v2.

Cheers,
Quentin